On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:27:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On 08/01/2012 08:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > >> If we switch to using functions, we could no longer hide it anywhere > > >> (we'd need to either turn the buckets into a struct, or have the > > >> user pass it around to all functions). > > > > > > Create an outer struct hash_table which remembers the size? > > > > Possible. I just wanted to avoid creating new structs where they're not really required. > > > > Do you think it's worth it for eliminating those two macros? > > What if someone wants to allocate hashtable dynamically which isn't > too unlikely? In particular, once this goes in, I'd like to add RCU-based hash resizing to it, which will require wrapping the hash table in a struct that also contains the size. So, please do consider having such a struct rather than relying on static array sizes. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>